Pages

Friday, December 09, 2011

In the appendix of Altar to an Unknown Love, I address MacDonald’s and Lewis’ generational influences regarding the use of language. Neither man was well disciplined in the use of scriptural language, and those who reproduce their teachings tend to repeat this problem. Though this may not seem like a strong complaint, it is, especially since both men proffered themselves as teachers of the Word (if even casually, as in the case of Lewis). After illustrating this point in the appendix of Altar to an Unknown Love, I went on to point out the dangers of any form of teaching which draws the believer away from the very language of Holy Writ. Let me reproduce that portion here:

When Scriptural language converges to a fairly monolithic meaning, we dull the blade of Holy Writ through a misuse of such important terms. And while such tactics may garner the attention of others, we must ask the question: who is ultimately getting that attention? In the introduction of this book, we consulted J.C. Ryle for his wisdom on the dangers of seeking theological novelty. Here, we should look at what he says about the dangers of using novel words and expressions:

"Finally, I must deprecate, and I do it in love, the use of uncouth and new-fangled terms and phrases in teaching sanctification. I plead that a movement in favor of holiness cannot be advanced by new-coined phraseology, or by disproportioned and one-sided statements--or by overstraining and isolating particular texts--or by exalting one truth at the expense of another--or by allegorizing and accommodating texts, and squeezing out of them meanings which the Holy Spirit never put in them--or by speaking contemptuously and bitterly of those who do not entirely see things with our eyes, and do not work exactly in our ways. These things do not make for peace: they rather repel many and keep them at a distance. The cause of true sanctification is not helped, but hindered, by such weapons as these. A movement in aid of holiness which produces strife and dispute among God's children is somewhat suspicious. For Christ's sake, and in the name of truth and charity, let us endeavor to follow after peace as well as holiness. 'What God has joined together let not man put asunder.' It is my heart's desire, and prayer to God daily, that personal holiness may increase greatly among professing Christians in England. But I trust that all who endeavor to promote it will adhere closely to the proportion of Scripture, will carefully distinguish things that differ, and will separate 'the precious from the vile.' ( Jeremiah 15:19.)"[1]

Ryle's wisdom is timeless, helpful, and should not be easily dismissed in the present day - because it is biblical. Clearly, Ryle's battle of yesteryear is the battle of the modern day, because nothing is new under the sun. His warning for his generation is for us as well. We all misspeak at times,[2] and our vocabulary will continue to be refined and transformed[3] as the Lord sanctifies us. But the direction that we must seek is one which presses back to the ancient anchor of Holy Writ, rather than forward to this ever-changing and dying world. [Altar to an Unknown Love]

We live in a world that seems to be more interested in being cool, hip, or even titillatingly shocking; therefore, we often hear “uncouth and new-fangled terms” being used to describe the precious truths of Scripture. Ryle is right to express concern over this tactic. The theological shock-jocks of the modern day may be able to identify themselves with the legacy of men like Lewis and MacDonald – but why not seek out the greater legacy of God as found in His perfect word?

As someone has rightly said: “what you win them with is what you win them to.” I agree, and this also applies to this issue of words: the powerful Word of God vs. the words of men.

P.S. Though I never explicitly address the language and philosophy of “Christian Hedonism,” per se, Gary Gilley is correct in his review to point out several inferences to the root idea of “Christian Hedonism” in Altar to an Unknown Love. Ultimately, the notion of “Christian Hedonism” is a derivative of Lewis’ own theology and use of language.

Tuesday, December 06, 2011

In the previous post, I highlighted the faithfulness of Jerome of Prague whose endurance in the Gospel brought him through many trials and tribulations, leading to his eventual martyrdom at the hands of the religious majority. As a follow-up to this lesser known piece of history, I want to remind the reader of two significant facts: 1. Those who condemned Jerome had no interest in hearing his full defense – in the blindness of their power, they cared little about any legislative justice; 2. When they pressed their charges, they revealed their own nakedness and shame, for the thing that was last on their list of complaints should have been first:

The vehemence of Jerome's opponents had a corrupt centerpiece. Rather than being the defenders of the majesty of God and His glorious Gospel, Jerome’s persecutors were revealed to be the protectors of their own power over the people. Meditate on that list of complaints and you will find that these men had no concern for the substance of Jerome's life and ministry; instead, they were incensed with an individual who would dare to question the religious majority. The Pope, his cardinals, and attending prelates, are all listed first as a kind of bizarre admission to a vacuously man-centered system of religion. Oddly, in a world that is ruled by the Prince of the power of the air, such complaints actually have a place in the annals of human "justice." However, in the world of God's genuine justice, the above fifth point - when true - supplies enough of a “list” to establish a genuine heresy.

If Jerome were truly a hater of the Christian religion, then not much else would need to be said.

Finally, the insanity of Jerome's conviction and murder was adorned with grotesque pride and spiritual indifference. Jerome’s accusers had no interest in hearing his defense. His humanity meant nothing to those who crushed his life. From the height of their power, Jerome's personal significance as a creation of God had faded from their sight, and by this mutilated perception of theirs, Jerome's personal testimony, life, and doctrine disappeared amidst their prelate-zeal to preserve their influence over the people. Before murdering him with their hands, they murdered him with their tongues (Matthew 5:22), with their:

Slander (Proverbs 16:28)

False accusations (Proverbs 12:22)

Malicious gossip (Proverbs 20:19)

The bearing of false witness (Deuteronomy 19:18)

All of this, along with their sinful acceptance of false witnesses, constituted the prerequisites to their ultimate goal – the godless destruction of a man who dared to question their presumed authority.

The modern church would be remiss to ignore such lessons that have been scripted with martyr’s blood. Overall, the Christian must remember that biblical authority always trumps the presumed power and authority of any prelate, religious body, or denomination.